In a groundbreaking move, machines took over the role of line judges at both the Australian and US Open tennis championships in 2021. This development was seen as inevitable due to the superior accuracy of these machines compared to humans when it comes to making calls on whether a ball is in or out. What’s more, these machines can even mimic human speech, ensuring that the players are not disoriented by their calls. It’s certainly a strange sight to see a disembodied voice shouting “Out!” from the court, especially when the machines with Australian accents are used at the Australian Open. However, the benefits of this technology far outweigh any eerie feelings, as it eliminates the need for time-consuming challenges and provides more reliable calls. Players quickly adapt to this new system.
Predictably, studies conducted in the 2010s to determine which jobs were at greatest risk of being automated ranked sports officials near the top of the list. A prominent study by Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne in 2017 even predicted a 98% probability that sports officiating would be completely taken over by computers within 20 years. It makes sense, considering that the most crucial qualification for these roles is the ability to make accurate decisions, such as determining whether a ball is in or out, whether it’s a ball or strike, or whether it’s fair or foul. These decisions rely on precise intelligence, which machines can provide even without cutting-edge technology. Hawk-Eye systems have been surpassing human eyesight for nearly two decades, first being adopted for tennis line calls in 2006, then for cricket umpire decisions in 2009, and more recently for football offsides.
However, despite the introduction of this intelligent technology, there are now more people employed in sports officiating than ever before. Wimbledon, in particular, has chosen to retain its line judges for aesthetic reasons. As the only major tournament played on grass, maintaining a visually pleasing setting against a green backdrop is crucial for its financial success (hence the rule requiring players to wear all-white attire). The line judges primarily serve for their visual appeal. In 2022, like the past 17 years, Ralph Lauren designed their uniforms.
Cricket matches, which historically had only two umpires, now have three to handle the complexities of the technology. Additionally, a referee is present to monitor player behavior, which still involves a significant amount of human judgment (who can definitively determine what upholds the spirit of the game?). Football matches employ up to five officials, along with a large team of screen-watchers who interpret video replays provided by the video assistant referee system (VAR). The NBA Replay Center in Secaucus, New Jersey, employs a full-time staff of 25, in addition to regular match officials, and wouldn’t look out of place at NASA.
Efficiency and accuracy are not the sole criteria for organizations that employ decision-makers in sports games. Appearance matters greatly, as they aim to preserve the idea that sports remain a human-centered enterprise. While smart technology can accomplish many things, it still falls short of convincingly replicating human presence unless humanoid robots become a reality. Therefore, actual people are necessary to stand between the machines and those being judged. Consequently, more work is generated all around.
Determining which jobs are likely to be replaced by AI remains challenging, although it is certain that employment will undergo significant changes. Most studies on the risks of automation, such as Frey and Osborne’s, view work as a collection of tasks that can be evaluated based on their suitability for automation. This perspective assumes that the limitations of current technology are the only barriers to human replacement. However, these barriers include the inability to exhibit various human-centric cognitive and mobility skills. Robots excel at repetitive and complex tasks, along with data crunching, but they struggle with fundamental forms of human interaction. Jobs involving creativity, aesthetic judgment, fluid movement, and social sensitivity are currently safe from automation. While robots can dance, they still require human choreographers to appear convincing.
Nevertheless, a task does not equate to a job in the modern sense. Jobs are created by organizations that have their own unique requirements, which go beyond simply efficiently performing tasks. Even profit-driven corporations take into account whether a job aligns with the organization’s needs. Most jobs continue to require human involvement because people are an essential element of the impersonal organizations that offer employment. Otherwise, it would appear as though machines are running the show, which isn’t desirable in a world where humans still hold significance.
Appearances are not everything. Some parts of organizations prioritize appearance less, such as backrooms and boardrooms that the public doesn’t see. Technical knowledge that supports public-facing tasks may be a precarious foundation for long-lasting employment. This applies to numerous professions, including accountancy, consultancy, and law. While there will always be plenty of work involving human interaction, tasks like data gathering, information processing, and precedent searching can now be entrusted to machines more reliably. This change particularly impacts entry-level jobs like clerks, administrative assistants, and paralegals, potentially leaving them without roles.
The future of employment will involve complex relationships that alter our understanding of work rather than eliminating it. The relationships between humans and machines will undoubtedly change, with some potentially being zero-sum (where more work for machines means less for humans), but most will likely be mutually beneficial. Doctors who use technology to diagnose cancers will need to develop additional skills, such as effectively communicating the information provided by machines. These skills are easier to acquire than expecting technology to replicate the skills possessed by doctors. Managers, lawyers, and ethicists will also have substantial work to do, overseeing and addressing issues in doctor-machine relationships. The age of AI guarantees an abundance of work in hospitals.
In the world of work, the order remains people, organizations, and machines. Could the order shift? Might organizations prioritize machines over people, or could machines make the most consequential decisions on behalf of organizations? History offers some insight into what might occur. Concerns about automation displacing human workers have existed since jobs were conceptualized. The Industrial Revolution disrupted various forms of labor and upended entire ways of life, resulting in painful transitions for those who had to adapt to new modes of subsistence. However, the outcome was an increase in jobs rather than a decrease. Factories introduced machines to perform tasks faster and more reliably than humans, while simultaneously creating new jobs that never existed before. This pattern has persisted throughout history: new technology replaces familiar work, causing disruptive transitions. It offers little solace to those who lose their jobs to hear that entirely new ways of making a living will emerge. However, they eventually do.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t always happen that the previous generation of workers finds new tasks. This was the case during the shift from an agricultural society to an industrial one. The digital transformation has the potential to exacerbate this issue. While technology will open doors to unknown opportunities, it may not always provide alternative roles for those replaced by automation. It’s important to acknowledge and address this challenge while navigating the future of work.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
